On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:19:30PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > > > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
> > >
> > > I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
> >
> > Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
> > open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
> > filenames for "opening" them and doing IO on tehm but one major
> > headache is the extensibility: the scheme part, especially. Check out
> > http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html for the latest list. Each
> > scheme carries with it own semantics for how the URL should be
> > understood and which methods can be applied on it. So URLs are not
> > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
> > may be too simplistic.
>
> But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as
> accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening
> of that path other than the fact that it is a URL. This renders it pretty
> useless as a structure to be interpreted *as* a structure as far as the
if (open(BLAH, ">mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
> client is concerned. But I agree, if only to not have to configure proxy
> settings to get 'Configure' to work. :/
>
> So these are actually half-digested-half-baked beans. The order of
> half-ities shouldn't be given any more thought ... damn, too late.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
